Obama Says: "Torture is a Secret!"

October 6, 2010 at 8:58 P.M. A single letter was added to the name of Justice Sotomayor by the Cubanoids, some of whom do not like Puerto Ricans. I have corrected that inserted "error." ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security.")

September 11, 2010 at 5:32 P.M. An attack against my security system allowed for alterations of "G.E. Moore's Critique of Idealism." I have made the necessary corrections. I cannot say how many other essays have also been damaged in this latest cyberattack. I will do my best to make all necessary corrections. ("New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court" and "New Jersey's Legal System is a Whore House.")

These are not acceptable actions by government officials or their agents in America. ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")

Charlie Savage, "Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by the C.I.A.," in The New York Times, September 9, 2010, at p. A1.
"Torture is a Crime, Not a Secret," (Editorial) in The New York Times, September 9, 2010, at p. A30.


"WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that former prisoners of the C.I.A. could not sue over their alleged torture in overseas prisons because such a lawsuit might expose secret government information." ("This is my first torture.")

This court decision has no bearing on my situation since, to my knowledge, no government agency (federal or state) claims that I am with Al Qaeda and have been since 1988. National security risks have not been a feature of my life. I am not now nor have I ever been a Muslim or a member of the Communist party.

"The sharply divided ruling was a major victory [?] for the Obama administration's efforts to advance a sweeping view of the executive secrecy powers. It strengthened the White House's hand as it has pushed an array of assertive counter-terrorism policies, while raising an opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule for the first time in decades on the scope of the president's power to restrict litigation that could reveal state secrets."

This Supreme Court -- with some dissents, I hope, including likely objections from Mr. Obama's appointees, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan -- is probably going to uphold the so-called "Imperial Presidency's" war powers as applicable in this twilight context of shadow wars and intelligence gamesmanship. This is sad and scary.

The "war against terror" may serve as a close enough analogy to traditional concepts of wartime discretion for the Commander and Chief to get his way. President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the first year of the civil war may provide a useful analogy for American fascists delighted by these developments. If hidden tortures of anyone by America is permissible -- without explanations or public rationales -- then our Constitution has become a lie. ("Metaphor is Mystery" and "Ronald Dworkin and the Jurisprudence of Interpretation.")

At issue before the "nine scorpions in a bottle" (Oliver Wendell Holmes) at the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a METAPHOR ("War on Terror") will suffice to make presidential denials of due process to torture victims "acceptable," legally and ethically. The current U.S. Supreme Court contains at least four justices who would, happily, rule slavery Constitutional. Sadly, this may include Justice Thomas. ("Metaphor is Mystery.")

President Obama has taken a step in the direction of Mr. Thomas by claiming -- apparently, persuasively as far as this Ninth Circuit Court is concerned -- the further authority to assassinate American citizens anywhere in the world without explicit or public justification (or trials of any kind!) based exclusively on a determination, made secretly, also by the the Chief Executive alone (if necessary) that such a military-style assassination should take place for "some" unspecified national security reasons.

Mr. Obama, I submit that our national interests will be gravely endangered if we do not end the dismal life of Mr. Limbaugh. Come to think of it, O'Reilly on Fox News is clearly a threat to the national interest of the United States of America.

This usurpation by the Executive of unaccountable power constitutes what many nations around the world (including Britain), to say nothing of the American Framers, describe as "tyranny." Very disappointing, Mr. Obama. ("Habeas Corpus" and "Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution.")

"Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen SUSPECTED of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis of their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.'s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfer -- though the administration has forbidden torture and it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated."

Hypocrisy? Mistreatment is prohibited, but assassination may be O.K. I regard any assassination, Mr. Obama, as "mistreatment" of the victim. The Times editorial points out:

" ... the merits of the case were never considered because the Bush administration [originally] argued that even discussing the matters in court would violate the state secrets privilege. Barack Obama told voters in 2008 that he opposed the government cult of secrecy, but once [Obama] became president, his Justice Department also argued that the case should be dismissed on secrecy grounds." ("Nihilists in Disneyworld" and "Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?")

The drastic actions taken upon the lives of victims -- in violation of basic principles of the U.S. Constitution, international law, or even ethical decency -- on the rationale that unarticulated, secret reasons by Star Chamber-like panels of unidentified government officials, like Mr. Penetta, are "sufficient" in a time of war pursuant to the powers of the "Imperial President" amount to legitimation of dictatorship. These Obama policies make Ken Starr seem like the ACLU. ("U.S. Courts Must Not Condone Torture.")

"The state secrets doctrine is so blinding and powerful that it should be invoked only when the most grave national security matters are at stake -- nuclear weapons details, for example, may be kept secret. It should not be used to defend against allegations that if true, as the dissenting judges wrote, would be 'gross violations of all the norms of international law.' ..."

In the words of President Obama: "We must not abandon our principles for the sake of expediency."